Advertisement

Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 281–288 | Cite as

The Role of Acetylation/Deacetylation of Histones and Transcription Factors in Regulating Metabolism in Skeletal Muscles

  • I. V. AstratenkovaEmail author
  • V. A. Rogozkin
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Two types of enzymes control the reversibility of the acetylation of amino acid lysine residues in histone molecules in the posttranslational modifications of proteins – histone acetyltransferases (HAT) and histone deacetylases (HDAC). HAT enzymes catalyze the transfer of an acetyl group to the amino acid lysine in the N-terminal parts of histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. HDAC enzymes are members of the hydrolases family and play an important role in signal transmission by deacetylating histones, inducing changes in gene expression in skeletal muscle in different functional states in humans. Of the 18 histone deacetylases, class IIa includes four enzymes (HDAC 4, 5, 7, and 9), which are tissue-specific and are involved in regulating metabolism in skeletal and cardiac muscles. Class IIa enzymes react with specific transcription factors to form multicomponent protein complexes, nuclear-cytoplasmic transfer of which in muscle cells influences the expression of regulatory and metabolic genes. Studies in recent years have provided evidence of the important role of this group of histone deacetylases in controlling intracellular metabolism and point to the need for studies of the molecular mechanisms involved in gene expression in skeletal muscles.

Keywords

histone deacetylases skeletal muscles control of metabolism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    I. V. Astratenkova and V. A. Rogozkin, “Involvement of AMP-dependent protein kinase in the regulation of metabolism in skeletal muscle,” Ros. Fiziol. Zh., 99, No. 6, 657–673 (2013).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. V. Astratenkova and V. A. Rogozkin, “Molecular mechanisms of skeletal muscle hypertrophy,” Ros. Fiziol. Zh., 100, No. 6, 649–669 (2014).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. V. Astratenkova and V. A. Rogozkin, “Signal pathways involved in regulating protein metabolism in skeletal muscle,” Ros. Fiziol. Zh., 102, No. 7, 753–772 (2016).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. D. Gol’berg, A. M. Druzhevskaya, V. A. Rogozkin, and I. I. Akhmetov, “The role of mTOR in the regulation of metabolism in skeletal muscle,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 40, No. 5, 123–132 (2014).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. M. Druzhevskaya, I. I. Akhmetov, and V. A. Rogozkin, “Involvement of Akt in the regulation of metabolism in skeletal muscle,” Ros. Fiziol. Zh., 99, No. 4, 518–527 (2013).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Bulusu, S. Tumanov, E. Michalopoulou, et al., “Acetate recapturing by nuclear acetyl-CoA synthetase 2 prevents loss of histone acetylation during oxygen and serum limitation,” Cell Rep., 18, No. 2, 647–658 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. M. Dancy and P. A. Cole, “Protein lysine acetylation by p300/CBP,” Chem. Rev., 115, No. 6, 24–52 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Das, F. Morvan, B. Jourde, et al., “ATP citrate lyase improves mitochondrial function in skeletal muscle,” Cell Metab., 21, No. 6, 868–876 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Di Giorgio and C. Brancolini, “Regulation of class IIa HDAC activities: it is not only matter of subcellular localization,” Epigenomics, 8, No. 2, 251–269 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Fan, K. A. Krautkramer, J. L. Feldman, and J. M. Denu, “Metabolic regulation of histone post-translational modifications,” ASC Chem. Biol., 10, No. 1, 95–108 (2015).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Galluzzi, J. M. Bravo-San Pedro, I. Vitale, S. A. Aaronson, et al., “Essential versus accessory aspects of cell death: recommendations of the NCCD 2015,” Cell Death Differ., 22, No. 1, 58–73 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Gaur, T. Connor, A. Sanigorski, et al., “Disruption of the Class IIa HDAC corepressor complex increases energy expenditure and lipid oxidation,” Cell Rep., 16, No. 11, 2802–2810 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. J. Guise, R. A. Mathias, E. A. Rowland, et al., “Probing phosphorylation-dependent protein interactions within functional domains of histone deacetylase 5 (HDAC5),” Proteomics, 14, No. 19, 2156–2166 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. F. Howlett and S. L. McGee, “Epigenetic regulation of skeletal muscle metabolism,” Clin. Sci. (Lond.), 130, No. 13, 1051–1063 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. M. Hudson, P. J. Watson, L. Fairall, et al., “Insights into the recruitment of class IIa Histone Deacetylases (HDACs) to the SMRT/NCoR transcriptional complex,” J. Biol. Chem., 290, No. 29, 18237–18244 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. G. Kaelin and S. L. McKnight, “Influence of metabolism on epigenetics and disease,” Cell, 153, No. 1, 56–69 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. V. Lee, S. A. Shah, and K. E. Wellen, “Obesity, cancer and acetyl-CoA metabolism,” Drug Discov. Today Dis. Mech., 10, No. 1–2, e55–e61 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Liu, B. R. Nelson, S. Bezprozvannaya, et al., “Requirement of MEF2A, C, D for skeletal muscle regeneration,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, No. 11, 4109–4114 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Madiraju, S. V. Pande, M. Prentki, and S. R. Madiraju, “Mitochondrial acetylcarnitine provides acetyl groups for nuclear histone acetylation,” Epigenomics, 4, No. 6, 399–403 (2009).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Mansueto, A. Armani, C. Viscomi, et al., “Transcription factor EB controls metabolic flexibility during exercise,” Cell Metab., 25, No. 1, 182–196 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Marmorstein and M. M. Zhou, “Writers and readers of histone acetylation: structure, mechanism, and inhibition,” Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 6, No. 7, a018762 (2014).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. E. McCullough and R. Marmorstein, “Molecular basis for histone acetyltransferase regulation by binding partners, associated domains and autoacetylation,” ACS Chem., 11, No. 3, 632–642 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. L. McGee, E. Fairlie, A. P. Garnham, and M. Hargreaves, “Exercise-induced histone modifications inhuman skeletal muscle,” J. Physiol., 587, No. 17, 5951–5958 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. L. McGee and M. Hargreaves, “Histone modifications and skeletal muscle metabolic gene expression,” Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol., 37, No. 3, 392–396 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. L. McGee, C. Swinton, S. Morrison, et al., “Compensatory regulation of HDAC5 in muscle maintains metabolic adaptive responses and metabolism in response to energetic stress,” FASEB J., 28, No. 8, 3384–3395 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. L. Medina, S. Di Paola, I. Peluso, et al., “Lysosomal calcium signaling regulates autophagy via calcineurin and TFEB,” Nat. Cell Biol., 17, No. 3, 288–299 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. Moretti, S. Ciciliot, K. A. Dyar, et al., “MRF4 negatively regulates adult skeletal muscle growth by repressing MEF2 activity,” Nat. Commun., 7, 12397 (2016), doi: 10.1038.2016.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Parra, “Class IIa HDACs - new insights into their functions in physiology and pathology,” FEBS J., 282, No. 9, 1736–1744 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Pietrola, L. Galluzzi, J. M. Bravo-San Pedro, et al., “Acetyl Coenzyme A: a central metabolic and second messenger,” Cell Metab., 21, No. 6, 805–821 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. R. Pon and M. A. Marra, “MEf2 transcription factors: developmental regulators and emerging cancer genes,” Oncotarget, 7, No. 3, 2297–2312 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. J. Potthoff, H. Wu, M. A. Arnold, et al., “Histone deacetylase degradation and MEF2 activation promote the formation of slow-twitch myofibers,” J. Clin. Invest., 117, No. 9, 2459–2467 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Z. T. Schug, B. Peck, D. T. Jones, et al., “Acetyl-CoA synthetase 2 promotes acetate utilization and maintains cancer cell growth under metabolic stress,” Cancer Cell, 27, No. 1, 57–71 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. Shi and P. T. Benjamin, “Acetyl-CoA and the regulation of metabolism: mechanisms and consequences,” Curr. Opin. Cell Biol., 33, No. 1, 125–131 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. Shi and B. P. Tu, “Protein acetylation as a means to regulate protein function in tune with metabolic state,” Biochem. Soc. Trans., 42, No. 4, 1037–1042 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. K. Starheim, K. Gevaert, and T. Arnesen, “Protein N-terminal acetyltransferases: when the start matters,” Trends Biochem. Sci., 37, No. 4, 152–161 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    X. Su, K. E. Wellen, and J. D. Rabinowitz, “Metabolic control of methylation and acetylation,” Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 30, 52–60 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Sutendra, A. Kinnaird, P. Dromparis, et al., “A nuclear pyruvate dehydrogenase complex is important for generation of acetyl-CoA and histone acetylation,” Cell, 158, No. 1, 84–97 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    F. Vahid, H. Zand, E. Nosrat-Mirshekarlou, et al., “The role dietary of bioactive compounds on the regulation of histone acetylases and deacetylases: a review,” Gene, 562, No. 1, 8–15 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. E. Walsh, and H. Van Remmen, “Emerging roles for histone deacetylases in age-related muscle atrophy,” Nutr. Healthy Aging, 4, No. 1, 17–30 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Z. Wang, G. Qin, and T. C. Zhao, “Histone deacetylase 4 (HDAC4): mechanism regulations and biological function,” Epigenomics, 6, No. 1, 139–150 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    C. Yang, B. Ko, C. T. Hensley, et al., “Glutamine oxidation maintains the TCA cycle and cell survival during impaired mitochondrial pyruvate transport,” Mol. Cell., 56, No. 3, 414–424 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Zhao, A. Torres, R. A. Henry, et al., “ATP-citrate lyase controls a glucose-to-acetate metabolic switch,” Cell Rep., 17, No. 4, 1037–1052 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.St. Petersburg Research Institute of Physical CultureSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations